Talk:Bobby Rush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voice[edit]

Is there any information available on his voice? Does he have a tracheotomy or has he had a stroke in the past? I'm curious because its obviously a unique voice and as to whether it is medically related or natural, I'd be interested to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.191.97 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation[edit]

Under "Occupation," it seems really awkward that it says "insurance agent" and something else...is this really necessary?

What is un-neutral about providing details about the statement Rush signed, especially since otherwise this history ends in 2004? ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.155.82 (talk ? contribs) 05:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC{})

When a Congressman signs a statement expressing the opinion that the actions of the government make him think of fascism, that's important. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.155.82 (talk ? contribs) 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC{})

Wikipedia is not a forum for editorialising opinions. Please make sure every item is sourced and verifiable and do not use weasel words. Bastique?parler voir 14:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very thin. Start here:[1] Andyvphil (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

There seems to be a slow edit war in progress between folks who assert that the subject is a convicted felon and those who argue he isn't. Mostly single purpose accounts on both sides, it seems, so I'll post here. Would any of the parties be interested in sitting down to discuss the issue so we can nail down some good references and get out of this mess? If the claims are true, then they should be covered here as it's a pretty big story. If not, then let's find good citations for that and have a section on the talk page ready to refute it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree. Mr. Rush did serve time in prison for an illegal weapons charge and this is properly cited. Further, Mr. Rush went AWOL from the army but was eventually honorably discharged. These are facts that are properly cited and a part of his past. He is a public servant, and attempts to cover this up is nothing more than corruption at it's highest. It is apparent that the individual that is working so hard to have these facts removed is obviously biased against facts. Bodhi83 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is proper sourcing and the material is presented in an NPOV manner, I have no issue with adding the content. (see the material about AWOL and illegal firearms charge that have been added to the article). I will not however allow content from an attack site remain in the article, nor the continued cherry picking of purely negative material from sources that contain broad content about Rush. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the Washingtontimes an attack site? The other site linked those articles back to the Washingtontimes site to begin with. It really smacks of bias that certain people do not agree with the listings on certain politicians wiki's versus others. I'd really truly like to see everyone not be biased and "Just the facts". That seems to be the problem with today's world, the lack of facts and constant cover up to hide the facts. Bodhi83 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who called the Wash Times an attack site? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation I listed linked back to the Times article. If they are using correct information, how is it an attack? It's just posting the truth. By calling one an attack site, and not the other, it smacks of bias. Bodhi83 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedPenOfDoom, would you be able to help Bodhi83 turn the info into something that's NPOV? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is NPOV now. Now, it is just labeled as random information that needs classification in what appears to be another attempt at removing the facts. Bodhi83 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps using a sandbox (or this discussion page) as a place to put a draft of material to get a couple of sets of eyes looking at it before adding material to the article itself? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine in practice, but people that do not want anything on his page that looks bad will still argue that it does not belong. Taking a neutral point of view does not mean that you look the other way when confronted with negative facts. You address them and move on.

Wouldn't you agree? Bodhi83 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always more productive to focus on actual content to be added/removed/modified for articles than wonder off on discussions about users intent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I agree. However, I am not appreciative of any insinuation of my not being impartial. I would expect no less from anyone else. Bodhi83 (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H.R.45 Edits[edit]

I find Red Pen's considerable hovering over this page to be most interesting. I want to note I could have put a much greater amount of detail about HR 45 in the edit I did, but I didn't want to be excessive. However, in the spirit of peace, I placed the information in the actual article about the bill and simply added the link. I don't think even Red Pen could object to that.J appleseed2 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HR 45 is one piece of proposed legislation in the career of a politician. WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Red Pen - libel my a$$ - Rush really is a Communist. If he wants to sue me for stating the obvious, let him. What do you think the Black Panthers were, Whigs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.67.79 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Panther Party[edit]

This article is woefully incomplete and uninformative. Is there a legitimate reason why Mr. Rush's membership in the Black Panther Party in the 1960s isn't even mentioned in passing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.63.85 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Bobby Rush[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bobby Rush's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jbcdnyt":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted of a Felony[edit]

The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Rush was convicted of a felony quite a long time ago. However, not including it in this article despite the fact that it has been reported by multiple mainstream news organizations and is in fact public record, should not be acceptable simply because some editors don't want to hear it. NPOV and the removal of bias in general is essential to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia. NPOV does not mean presenting everyone's point of view equally regardless of facts. Not wanting significant events (such as a felony conviction) to be included in an individual's biography cannot be substantiated by asserting it's inclusion as evidence of a "hit job", "attack", or "POV". It is unquestionably significant, and should therefore be included in the article. Simply saying he served time in prison for "x" reason is not adequate. The word "felony" must be included.

24.60.214.65 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Rush&oldid=1195374252"